A contrarian blog, because the majority is wrong about a lot of stuff.

December 15, 2012

Post-massacre predictions

Because of the especially heinous nature of this crime (innocent young children gunned down—if he had to get back at someone for his shitty life, why not kill the actual people who had teased him in high school?) I think this will have more lasting impact than previous massacres.

(1) There will be new momentum to get gun control legislation passed. (This is not an endorsement, merely a prediction. I write this to ward of hate comments. For some weird reason, HBD blogs attract a lot of pro-gun people. Even though belief in HBD should mean understanding that there are a lot of people out there whom you shouldn’t feel comfortable with them owning guns.)

(2) Backlash against aspergery people.

* * *

Commenter SFG answers the question of why people who read HBD blogs are pro-gun:

It's pretty simple. You're on Team Blue, or Team Red. (There are smaller teams, like Team Yellow for the libertarians, and Team White (or Brown?) for the WN people.) If you join a team, you start believing all the other stuff the people on that team believe, because you get your news from sources on that team, and you don't have time to evaluate each and every proposition on its merits. So HBD people are on Team Red (or White) and tend to be pro-gun for that reason--they're always reading articles about how gun control isn't really the answer on the conservative sites they frequent. Similarly, liberals, who I presume you agree with on abortion, etc., tend to be wrong about race because they're always reading about how it doesn't really exist, etc. on the liberal sites they frequent.

Plus there's the affiliative drive, or herd instinct. Even people who claim they have no herd instinct tend to find a virtual herd like libertarians, anarchists, or far-left hippies, and agree with those people.

104 Comments

Connecticut already has much more restrictive gun laws than most other states. I would imagine if there are any sweeping changes to come from this shooting, they will be in terms of making it easier to commit the mentally ill. Which would lead to a HUGE emotional battle, as the "advocates" for the mentally ill are far more organized and determined than the gun lobby would ever dream to be.

[HS: The mother legally owned the pistols and assault rifle, which are exactly the type of guns most gun control advocates want to restrict.]

It's not clear why the mother had to purchase all those guns, including the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the killings? She came from a prole family (father was a cop). The vast majority of Americans do not have guns in their homes. Isn't having a gun at home a risk factor and that the most common victims (of purchased guns) are family members? There's a common mistaken analogy linking gun ownership and car ownership. Cars do kill but they provide immense value and are used a lot. Its time to stigmatize gun owners.

Potential legislation, such as the return of the Assault Weapon Ban, will likely have little effect upon those of us that live in NYS. New York has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation: for example, when the federal AWB expired NY decided to continue enforcing it's regs.

Residents who live upstate generally feel that their gun rights should not be impeded by the will of loons downstate like Bloomberg et al.

This crime is misanthropy pushed to the extreme. You will always have people who dislike their own communities. In some extreme cases of Asperger, that hatred gets so bad that it becomes evil. Adam clearly hated his own people more than he loved his own life and desired to inflict as much pain as he possible could. When such hatred becomes metaphysical, a suicidal massacre may be be just around the corner. Most autistic people do not have much of a capacity for empathy anyway.

From that perspective, targeting a primary school makes sense. Children, especially girls, are as close to innocence as you’re going to get. Their parents basically worship them and love them more than anything.

The question is why a normal White boy of upper middle class background and above average intelligence would sacrifice his own life on the altar of such hatred. Even if guns were banned, at some point a disturbed person is going to create a precedent by using improvised explosives or something else to create just as much mayhem as Lanza did. His father appears to be an intelligent, good looking man. It’s chilling to realize that such a normal person could give birth to an anti-social, incipient mass murder.

The only effective law that would have prevented the massacre would have been a law that would take away all guns from people like Nancy J. Lanza and would prevent them from owning or purchasing one in the future.

Since almost no politician is willing to go that far, any regulation will have little, if any, effect on preventing crimes like what happened.

"Even though belief in HBD should mean understanding that there are a lot of people out there whom you shouldn’t feel comfortable with them owning guns"

Well put. You want personal security? Move to a town with no blacks and few white proles. Getting a gun is a band-aid, not a solution. Germans enjoy, if anything, more personal freedom these days than Americans, and guns are tightly regulated there (but NOT banned, and hunting is very popular among certain social classes). A gun can protect you from a home invasion, true, but the idea that gun owners will ever stop government from abrogating our civil rights or defending "liberty" is pure fantasy (as the last 30 years of ever increasing government intrusion has shown). If it were possible, I'd gladly trade away the 2nd amendment for real immigration restrictions and a more HBD oriented social policy.

For whatever reason, he developed a severe facial deformity. His face grew downward instead of forward and outward, to a grotesque degree. His facial length relative to the distance between his eyes is probably at least 6 standard deviations from the mean. In other words, he's a freak.

Because he was so ugly and dorky looking, he was treated like a leper. Guys made fun of him, girls rejected him, teachers ignored him, and society in general regarded him as dog shit. Being a hideously ugly guy, he had no legitimate way to get back at society. He also had no legitimate way to improve his life because his biggest problem was the structure of his skull. He was a smart guy, so he realized suicide was his best option. The shooting was simply an "F You" to society for treating him like scum.

It's pretty simple. You're on Team Blue, or Team Red. (There are smaller teams, like Team Yellow for the libertarians, and Team White (or Brown?) for the WN people.) If you join a team, you start believing all the other stuff the people on that team believe, because you get your news from sources on that team, and you don't have time to evaluate each and every proposition on its merits. So HBD people are on Team Red (or White) and tend to be pro-gun for that reason--they're always reading articles about how gun control isn't really the answer on the conservative sites they frequent. Similarly, liberals, who I presume you agree with on abortion, etc., tend to be wrong about race because they're always reading about how it doesn't really exist, etc. on the liberal sites they frequent.

Plus there's the affiliative drive, or herd instinct. Even people who claim they have no herd instinct tend to find a virtual herd like libertarians, anarchists, or far-left hippies, and agree with those people.

In response to (1) I would agree that there are people who make me feel uncomfortable, but experience with gun control has proved that there isn't a way to keep them from getting guns. Both gun control propaganda and HNU rely on tortured statistics and outright lies. One would expect a large overlap between the gun nuts and the racists.

I doubt there will be a backlash against spergs. The masses are well trained not to go after protected victim groups (in this instance "the disabled"). The backlash against Muslims was pretty minimal after 9/11, considering the magnitude of the provocation. You can be sure the media will scour the country looking for hate crimes against spergs, though.

I don't like the phrase "assault weapon." Anything can be used for assault. If I hit someone with a stick, I have used an "assault stick."

We are not going to have any serious long-term restrictions on guns. Even if legislation is passed, subsequent legislation will repeal the restrictions. There are too many guns in circulation already, and the government is not going to confiscate people's weapons.

"Most autistic people do not have much of a capacity for empathy anyway." - Matthew

And you think "normal" people do? Does Obama have any empathy for the kids he incinerates with his drone strikes? Dozens upon dozens die in those "precision" attacks. The CIA even bombs them a second time if they feel like the targeted area is getting help too soon (not enough casualties for them).

Wait a second, you're suggesting that because human beings are basically apes with pants, we should not be allowed to own as many (and almost whatever type) of guns we want? While the Gestapo's in charge, why don't we also pass a law that makes it illegal to drive 130 mph on the freeway because some people "can't handle it." Since when does a school shooting have anything to do with guns?

We could certainly use better gun control laws. The reason we need such laws is to keep guns away from violent NAMs. Otherwise, there's nothing much that can be done on the gun-control front to stop this kind of massacre.

The fact that the shooter had access to a rifle didn't and wouldn't make a difference. A semi-automatic assault rifle just isn't that much more dangerous than any other gun. Handguns are sufficiently fast and deadly at close ranges. Revolvers vs pistols wouldn't make a difference -- speedloaders exist for revolvers. A single action revolver can be shot quite quickly. Smaller clips won't make a difference for pistols -- you can change a clip in a few seconds. Shotguns are tremendously deadly at short ranges. The best possible gun control laws would merely slow down the pace of a committed killer by a few seconds, or marginally raise the skill level required. As most mass killers are highly intelligent and meticulous, this would hardly stand in their way.

What would help is for the media to stop naming and in a perverse way glorifying the individuals who commit these acts.

That said, keeping NAMs from shooting one another could be helped by limiting their access to ammunition. It would be easy to raise taxes on ammo and it wouldn't trigger 2nd amendment concerns.

Conspiracy Theory: The Sandy Hook shooting was a setup by the White House to gain support for banning guns. They picked out this weirdo LOOZer and a Fed posing as terrorist bribed Lanza with some whatever promises to do the deed. They got him the guns and had a co-conspirator kill him and his "mother" after the fact to hide the real truth. All the required phony records emplaced to support the investigation. It's just now coming out that nobody at the school, where his "mother" was supposedly a teacher, knew her. The White House is bunch of ruthless mofos who will do anything to advance their agenda. Think Fast & Furious......

It was reported tonight on CBS that the mother bought the weapons to protect her home from invasion because she feared the economy and society was going to collapse. It was also reported she took her son to target practice with the weapons, knowing that he was a disturbed loner and prone to temper outbursts. If true, it suggests the mother was a flake and a nutjob and helped create this monster.

I thought that the unspoken reason that Americans have guns is a crime-prone black underclass. Most other Western countries, until recently, have not had this worry.

Guns are more likely to be used against family members rather than intruders. In my country if you shoot an intruder you will be dragged through the courts for years and will be lucky to avoid jail. You will have to prove beyond doubt that you used reasonable force.

Guns make homicide and suicide too easy. Shooting is an impersonal method of murder perfectly suited for Aspergery types who would probably freak out if they had to touch someone.

"The question is why a normal White boy of upper middle class background and above average intelligence would sacrifice his own life on the altar of such hatred." - Matthew

Why would a rich Saudi become a worldwide terrorist? He wanted more power/prestige and to be king of Saudi Arabia himself. It's an impulse to acquire as many mating opportunities as possible. Sadly the driving force behind a lot of things is sex.

There is a reason why single men are looked down upon and viewed with suspicion. It's the same reason they get thrown out of the bookstore when they're in the kids area. It's the same reason guys have to be married preferably with children to move up the career ladder. Single guys are regarded as untrustworthy who may act out in some socially frowned upon way. Nature hardwired to think this way because it's true. Beta male rage is just the worst manifestation of this but it exists at many levels.

Quote: "Even though belief in HBD should mean understanding that there are a lot of people out there whom you shouldn’t feel comfortable with them owning guns"

True, but the problem is that the anti-gun people want to take guns away from law-abiding white people not from criminal minorities. That is why the anti-gun groups make such a big deal out of these sort of atrocities instead of the ongoing violent crimes in black-dominated places like Detroit.

Quote: "In my country if you shoot an intruder you will be dragged through the courts for years and will be lucky to avoid jail. You will have to prove beyond doubt that you used reasonable force."

So in your country criminals can break into people's homes safe in the knowledge that if they get killed while committing their criminal activities the homeowners will have their lives turned into crap?

[HS: The mother legally owned the pistols and assault rifle, which are exactly the type of guns most gun control advocates want to restrict.]

I thought it was just a high powered rifle, you know, like a deer rifle. There are semi auto versions of these rifles. They will shoot 300 yards which is why people use them to hunt deer. No one is campaigning to outlaw deer rifles.

Think about how much trouble zuckerberg had trying to have a normal social life. Part of the reason he was so motivated to get rich was because he couldn't get laid. His midface is on the long side. Women typically prefer compact midfaces.

As with every disaster, there were several factors at play, with any one of them in isolation not likely to cause the disaster:

1) A crazy guy (we don't yet know what disorder he had exactly)
2) His "normal" mother who was not really normal and wanted to protect herself and probably her son by having lots of guns
3) Availability of guns in US

For me, factor (2) is the most mysterious of all. Why the hell would a woman keep an arsenal in her house in a very safe area, where there is hardly any crime at all? Probably she was crazy too, and passed it to one of her sons.

Now, the problem is that one cannot detect crazy people like the Lanza family easily enough. It takes a good psychiatrist to do it, and even then someone who knows the person well enough should pick up some signs to actually make them go into treatment.

The mother was not a psycho, but she definitely had issues. Having 3-10 guns in a house should NOT be considered normal except for hunters, police, military, marksman clubs etc. The only way to make it so is to make guns harder to obtain. Thats it. Just lower the supply of guns, make everyone get a gun license with all kinds of checks, limit the number of guns per household.
No reason to ban handguns outright. But I can not imagine why one would need an assault rifle.

"Why would a rich Saudi become a worldwide terrorist? He wanted more power/prestige and to be king of Saudi Arabia himself. It's an impulse to acquire as many mating opportunities as possible"

You're only half right. Terrorism is an impulse to enhance his genetic fitness, but not through mating opportunities ( that's terribly inefficient) but rather through protecting his Arab race (which shares millions of copies of his alleles) from perceived existential threats.

" Single guys are regarded as untrustworthy who may act out in some socially frowned upon way. Nature hardwired to think this way because it's true"

Wrong again!

Nature hardwired us to belittle single guys to pressure the child free members of our gene pool into doing their part to pass on the tribes genes instead of just genetically free loading off the breeders in the tribe.

bazookas, chain guns and mini nuclear bombs don't kill people, people do. since it's the person who does the killing and while the weapon has nothing to do with it, we should have absolutely no regulations on owning anything no matter how potentially deadly. Owning a grizzly as a pet should be our god given right just as owning a machine gun that can shoot 400 rounds per 10 secs. People who want to kill will kill no matter what the regulations are; therefore repeal all regulations against owning anything.

"I doubt there will be a backlash against spergs. The masses are well trained not to go after protected victim groups (in this instance "the disabled"). The backlash against Muslims was pretty minimal after 9/11, considering the magnitude of the provocation. You can be sure the media will scour the country looking for hate crimes against spergs, though."

You're only half right.

There won't be a backlash against spergs (I'm stealing that) but the primary reason is geeky SWPLs have too many spergy kids

Sleazio - your key fact is wrong. If I brandish a gun at an attacker, and let them run away without firing it, I have used the gun, for its likely intended purpose. The number of defensive gun uses in America is enormously high, and hard to document, because if I defend myself with a gun in that way, I may just not want to tell the police about it, because, depending where I live, they might make life rather miserable for me. Especially if I have any sort of criminal history.

Also, while historically, people own guns to defend themselves against blacks, gun control is *also* primarily pushed by people trying to defend themselves against blacks. The first significant restrictions on gun ownership in this country were specifically targeted at blacks, and many subsequent gun control laws were primarily aimed at blacks. There's a poorly-defined class of gun called a "Saturday Night Special", which has been the target of bans over the past 50 years. A word has been dropped from that description - they're "Niggertown Saturday Night Specials". And that's why they had to be banned.

School shootings involving young kids are especially hard to deal with emotionally. Preventing it is pretty simple, however. Put armed guards in every school. It would cost a tiny fraction of attempts at gun control and would actually work.

I see lots of SWPL types calling for more mental health care (spending), because they know the battle for gun control has been lost. I wonder how many of them have thought through what expanding our mental health system to reduce this sort of massacre would require. There's something like 2 million 18-year-old males in this country, and another 2 million of each age near that. Out of that, there are maybe 10 to 20 of these crimes per year.

So we'd need to give a psych evaluation to every single 18-year-old every year (that's 2 million evals per year) to have a hope of catching a few of the people who are unstable enough to try a mass shooting. Naybe you'd want to do it at 16 or 17 so you can get to most of them in school. You might want to repeat the eval at about age 20-21 to get those whose schizophrenia started to manifest after 18. (More so if the first screening is younger.)

Then you'd have to do something about the results. What percentage of 18-year-old males would turn up as disturbed as a sampling of our recent mass shooters? Most teenagers are fucked up. Most of them outgrow it, but you'd have a hard time figuring out which ones would until they've grown up some more.

So now what do you do with tens of thousands of socially maladjusted teenagers who are about to enter college, the military, or the workforce and who just might snap and shoot everyone around them? You'd have to enter them in the no-gun registries, and let their parents know. But who else gets to know? Colleges? Employers? You're kidding, right? The liability of letting someone so marked would be too great, unless you call them disabled and say that the ADA requires colleges and employers to take them.
Are you going to actually try to fix them? How? With drugs which a significant fraction of the time make things worse, and another significant fraction of the time make them less capable of being productive (lethargy, cognitive impairment, physical side-effects) even if their behavior gets better?

Maybe you could draft them all, especially if we're willing to start a suicide-bomber unit to use against our unconventional enemies.

Even if the specific identities were hidden, people would come to know that certain personality types and people with certain hobbies were more likely to be evaluated as potential mass shooters, and people with those personality types and/or hobbies would become even more outcast from society than they are now.

Go back and look at the personality profiles of recent mass shooters, especially the younger ones. Now think if *you* might fit (or have fit when you were 18-20) that profile. Or how many of your friends would have.

"Even though belief in HBD should mean understanding that there are a lot of people out there whom you shouldn’t feel comfortable with them owning guns."

Actually, HBD predicts that blacks will be far more likely to break laws in order to get guns, and that white and Asian gun owners will be more likely to know how to use their weapons safely and effectively, and will keep them in better working order.

BTW, the expectations of amnesty are so high at this point that if Congress somehow fails to roll over, you are going to see a much more militant Latino movement next year.

Conservatism/right-wing ideology is not necessitated by the internal logic of HBD. It's just currently taboo among liberals and leftists. However, HBD was once a mainstream view among liberals and leftists, and the outlook is in no way inconsistent with liberalism or leftism. I'd consider myself a moderately left-leaning person who sees human inequality as having genetic and not genetic biological factors, and look at inequality as being a result of said factors in addition to environmental factors and our ceaseless quest for status acquisition. That said, I think it's more pleasant to live in a world where said inequalities are at least moderated to some degree, perhaps though a combination of a social safety net and a humane form of eugenics.

A male bear or cat will kill all children that it can to bring the females into heat. Humans don't really work that way, since we are weaned long before we are grown, but perhaps something similar was going on in his head. Sometimes when a male chimp is angry with a female chimp he eats her baby.

At first I questioned the diagnosis of beta-male rage because he killed his mother. However it came out that his mother divorced his dad when he was 17. He and his dad were both having trouble with women at the same time. He would have identified with his dad and identified his mom with the girls that rejected him. His mom probably cheated on his dad. If he can't trust his mom, then what woman can he trust? I can imagine him immediately generalizing to "all women are evil, dishonest, dirty, sluts".

As for gun control... there is very little evidence to go on, but what little legitimate evidence that I have seen (before/after studies) strongly supports gun rights. Everything else (such as trying to find correlations) is so hopelessly confounded by demographics as to be useless. Blacks don't use sunscreen and they don't get sunburns. Are we to conclude that sunscreen causes sunburns? That's basically the argument against guns in a nutshell.

The photos I've seen of him aren't very clear but the kid doesn't look abnormally ugly to me. ... Dylan Klebold was ugly and apparently did the bidding of relatively good-looking Eric Harris. ..... But from the pictures I've seen, this Lanza kid didn't have as abnormally a long face as recent prez candidate John Kerry.

He does look skinny though. He probably went bitter because he got beat up a lot not because he was ugly.

"Think about how much trouble zuckerberg had trying to have a normal social life. Part of the reason he was so motivated to get rich was because he couldn't get laid."-ProudTroll

Zuckerberg's supposed social problems were a creation of a scandal-hawking media and Hollywood movie producers. He had the gf, in addition to multiple dorm and computer/techy friends (irl), prior to starting facebook.

He may not be the life of a frat party, but the true nerds were the guys he had behind the scenes doing all the start-up grunt work for peanuts.

The kid was an honor student and upper middle class. You must live an an ivory tower if that doesn't count as normal at all.

"Doesn't matter because he wasn't a beta. The entitlement of the omega is the problem. Inferior males who think they deserve to be treated like special Princes are the problem." - Rifleman

Again you erroneously assume males are the sexual selectors. Since nothing I say gets through to you let me repost a funny image from a female blogger (Hooking up Smart). Since you worship the divine feminine maybe that might help you grasp.

Before and after comparisons of the the sexual revolution. It's a little exaggerated but mostly right especially if you're young.

The right wingers want guns to defend themselves against blacks. If you're living out in the middle of nowhere or rural america, help and LEO is likely going to take time to get to you. Guns are important for people on the right because of historical and social reasons, you can't go hunting without a gun, it's a time honored right of passage to own a gun and an initiation into manhood for some people. Liberals in dense urban cores want to restrict guns to protect themselves from blacks. Why this case made such headlines is because where you live and who you live beside is suppose to protect you from this form of violence, stuff like this just doesn't happen in this sort of neighborhood. I suspect nothing new will be done on the gun control front, even though liberal news outlets are putting gun control front and center on their coverage.

"Terrorism is an impulse to enhance his genetic fitness, but not through mating opportunities ( that's terribly inefficient) but rather through protecting his Arab race (which shares millions of copies of his alleles) from perceived existential threats." - Linda

Nobody in the region genuinely thinks/acts this way. Most victims of terrorism are Arabs/Muslims as conflicts are sectarian, regional, and political in nature. The west got dragged into it because we're taking sides in their conflicts (we have to for various reasons). You don't see the barbarism they engage in toward one another on CNN so it creates an image that it's all foreign related. Whenever Israel bombs Gaza all the dead trees and killed cows are shown. When Saudi Arabia bombs the Yemen border with the purpose "purging all threats" nothing is shown.

"Nature hardwired us to belittle single guys to pressure the child free members of our gene pool into doing their part to pass on the tribes genes instead of just genetically free loading off the breeders in the tribe." - Linda

This is just your silly woman thinking. Most men are not needed for reproduction. Polygamy has been the biological and historical norm. Marriage and monogamy is a social construct.

I'm pro-gun because it's a basic right that needs to guarded for a true American democratic society. When police aren't available, who is going to stop "evil" bad criminals from looting and breaking the law?

It creates a check and balance system, no surprise that government is trying to ban it since everything in life is a power grab. Eventually we will end up much like China if the good men do nothing.

If there was a mass killing through teddy bears or shaving razors, are we going to ban those too? It's the person behind the tool that needs to be focused, not the tool itself.

Adam Lanza was a below average dude. His brother Ryan Lanza is about 6 the most. Those pictures surfacing on the net prior to his questioning by the police were from his younger juvenile days. The guy now looks like a typical beta pudge, and they don't age well. Let's say he isn't going to be popular with women going forward. It might be another problem festering with the Lanzas.

International criminal networks means you can't just outlaw stuff. The criminal trade in no-tax cigs props up pretty much half the Balkans.

Guns are amazingly useful. Even more than drugs. Criminals need/use them for crime. Ordinary people like them for protection against said criminals. People won't give them up any more than cigs or drugs.

The only way to stop things like that are to lock up the crazy people.

> If there was a mass killing through teddy bears or shaving razors, are we
> going to ban those too? It's the person behind the tool that needs to be
> focused, not the tool itself.

One person can NOT kill 27 people in 5 minutes using a shaving razor (or a teddy bear). In the knife attack on school in China, there were NO fatalities.
That is why there are no reports on mass killing with teddy bears/razors by a single guy and there will never be any.

Why is it so hard to comprehend that guns make killing people much easier than knives? And that killing using an assault rifle is even easier than killing using a pistol? All of this is Captain Obvious - obvious.

Less guns -> less school massacres, and ones that do happen will be less deadly

Lol, why are Americans so obsessed with guns? In Australia, we got rid of our weapons over 10 years ago. It was exactly this kind of senseless violence that triggered the law that finally saw Australians give up their weapons.

Oh, but now we cannot fight back the guvmint! Lol, as if we were going to fight them with our weapons!

Just face it conservatives, you're dead wrong on gun control (perhaps like climate change). Get off this sinking ship.

If abortion is toxic to the GOP, then gun control is toxic to Dems. Alex Jones, that nut, has already accused Obama of "fake crying", and I'm sure there will be others on the fringe of the right who will say the same. The Sean Hannities will be too afraid to say that. They have too much clout to lose.

This is a terrible tragedy for the nation, the Democrats need to leave it at that for now. Implying, as Michael Moore did, that people against gun control don't care about the children, is only making things worse for those of us on the left. Do they not realise that Obama has done virtually nothing about guns and that Clinton's assault weapons ban may have prompted the Republican takeover of 1996?

And while gun control has heavy support among politicians and pundits on both the right and the left, it's very distrusted by the average person lately.

Yes, I think Second Amendment Purism is stupid indeed, but now really isn't the time to politicise what happened. If the liberals provoke a 2014 GOP comeback by trying to force the issue, I will REALLY consider relocating to Switzerland. I'm SICK of the party of stupid winning in this country because the more sensible party lets them. Being a Progressive in the US is hard, because I have to deal with the fact my "elected officials" are virtually aimless Woody Allen types who never fight for what Progressives really want.

This was a horrible event brought about by a seriously disturbed person who needed help. If a pro-gun control lib like me can understand that why can't everyone else?

"Nobody in the region genuinely thinks/acts this way. Most victims of terrorism are Arabs/Muslims as conflicts are sectarian, regional, and political in nature. The west got dragged into it because we're taking sides in their conflicts (we have to for various reasons). You don't see the barbarism they engage in toward one another on CNN so it creates an image that it's all foreign related"

What a shockingly naive thing to write. Most victims are Arabs because Arab terrorists lack the power to kill non-Arabs in large numbers, and non-Arabs don't get dragged into their conflicts, they create and/or encourage them by cleverly pitting different Arab subgroups against each other, sometimes even arming both sides. And your laughable implied assertion that the American media is not showing Arab barbarianism because they are pro -Arab is not worth dignifying with a response.

"This is just your silly woman thinking. Most men are not needed for reproduction. Polygamy has been the biological and historical norm"

This is just your linear man thinking. Most men are not needed for reproduction, however all men are needed to COMPETE for reproduction so the tribe passes on the best genes it has to offer. Thus men who refuse to play the mating game are punished by the tribe until they give in.

It's not weird at all. Even though I'm interested in HBD for purely scientific reasons, sadly I'm the exception, not the rule. Most HBD types are driven by a primitive tribal impulse to protect their race (gene pool) from competition from other races, so of course they want guns.

SFG has a reasonable answer. But I think there is more to it. Conservatives rate higher on "fear". It stands to reason that someone who rates higher on fear would be more likely to want a gun for protection. That's why I never really bought Sailer's argument on the reasons for the disparity between urban liberal and rural conservative on guns. He's thinking like a conservative. You can't think like a conservative when you're analyzing liberal motives.

I'm pro-gun because it's a basic right that needs to guarded for a true American democratic society. When police aren't available, who is going to stop "evil" bad criminals from looting and breaking the law?

It creates a check and balance system, no surprise that government is trying to ban it since everything in life is a power grab. Eventually we will end up much like China if the good men do nothing.

If there was a mass killing through teddy bears or shaving razors, are we going to ban those too? It's the person behind the tool that needs to be focused, not the tool itself."

That's a good argument against gun control, but does it explain the correlation? The question here is less whether gun control is good or bad, but why people who believe in HBD are against gun control. Granted there may be a little correlation since you need guns to defend yourself against NAMs, and HBDers are more realistic about NAMs, but I think my statement explains most political correlations. Why can't you believe in HBD and AGW? (This is my own position.) Be against gun control and in favor of abortions? (Plenty of libertarians are...) Being pro-life and anti-death-penalty is a perfectly consistent position (it's the one taken by the Catholic Church), but you never seem to hear about it much.

I don't care to be disarmed by people who control the government and who consider me a kulak. Also, criminals would still be armed anyhow. They always are, when you disarm the law-abiding. We've got endless real-world data on this stuff, and the anti-rights people are 100% wrong, every time.

Data! Good stuff. No harm in a little data now and then, I assure you.

Gun control is voodoo, like slut walks and affirmative action.

Alt-righters are ALREADY not thinking in pure Team Red terms, or we'd be reading National Review and shunning HBD as racism.

You believe in gun control because that's fashionable where you live, not because you got there rationally.

This terrible tradgity is the result of a cultural problem. It has more to do with little Billy sitting at home playing first person shooter games while Mommy complains to her lawyer that Daddy isnt paying enough alimony than it does the availability of guns. Home grown Terrorists will find a way to cause carnage and destruction regardless.

Let's also chat about alcohol. It is readily available and distributed but serves no functional purpose outside of raw entertainment. Yet, it is the primary cause (auto accidents, fights, etc) and secondary cause (heart dissease, liver, divorce, etc) of so many problems and deaths, all without the threat of illegalization and stricter regulation.

"What percentage of 18-year-old males would turn up as disturbed as a sampling of our recent mass shooters? Most teenagers are fucked up. Most of them outgrow it, but you'd have a hard time figuring out which ones would until they've grown up some more."

The statistical odds of being killed by a white male schizophrenic mass shooter are so remote that it's not worth giving expanded powers to the psychiatric community. Especially when you consider the average American psychiatrist is nuttier and less scientific than the average witch doctor in the Congo.

"I'm pro-gun because it's a basic right that needs to guarded for a true American democratic society. When police aren't available, who is going to stop "evil" bad criminals from looting and breaking the law?"

In the case of this shooting, no law short of banning all guns would have prevented it because Lanza stole his guns from his mother who legally purchased them.

Even banning only semi-automatic weapons wouldn't have had a significant effect on the death toll because Lanza could have caused almost as much damage if he had only used pistols and a shotgun.

[HS: A mass killing is obviously a lot harder to do with a gun which has to be reloaded after each shot.]

"However, HBD was once a mainstream view among liberals and leftists, and the outlook is in no way inconsistent with liberalism or leftism."

The British Eugenics Society was packed with Fabian socialists like BES Chairman Julian Huxley (who did a 180 on race after WWII by signing the UNESCO statement on race), the Marxist cofounder of modern computational genetics, JBS Haldane, and lord Keynes.

So banning anything should be banned? If you ban bazookas, a black market will form where bazookas can be had; therefore, bazookas should be sold freely. If you ban owning atomic bombs, a black market will form where atomic bombs can be had; therefore, owning atomic bombs should be legal. It's not the grizzly bear than Jeb owns as a pet that kills people when it happens to kill people, it's Jeb and his stupidity. Why can you folks see than bans never work and just make the problem a lot worse?

For whatever reason, he developed a severe facial deformity. His face grew downward instead of forward and outward, to a grotesque degree. His facial length relative to the distance between his eyes is probably at least 6 standard deviations from the mean. In other words, he's a freak.

Because he was so ugly and dorky looking, he was treated like a leper. Guys made fun of him, girls rejected him, teachers ignored him, and society in general regarded him as dog shit. Being a hideously ugly guy, he had no legitimate way to get back at society. He also had no legitimate way to improve his life because his biggest problem was the structure of his skull. He was a smart guy, so he realized suicide was his best option. The shooting was simply an "F You" to society for treating him like scum."

Sad but totally true. Especially the suicide part. Contrary to a popular idea, it actually takes both smarts and guts to end your own life. The easier alternative is to simply put yourself on disability and believe in Jesus.

I kind of sympathize with him, now that I know he was ugly. It is horrible to live in a Judeo-Christian society when you suffer from a big handicap, as the hypocritical admixture of pretty lies ("you're special"/"God loves you") and ugly truth (*insert loved girl turning her head in disgust*) is too much to bear for most. Of course, his act remains completely stupid and therefore evil... He should have targeted it better, IMO.

However, HBD was once a mainstream view among liberals and leftists, and the outlook is in no way inconsistent with liberalism or leftism."

That's why I started blogging. I believe HBD'ers and SWPL liberals can definitely be friends. And HBD people need lefties sympathetic to it because let's face it, it would be more well received in today's society if it were associated with liberals.

"It is horrible to live in a Judeo-Christian society when you suffer from a big handicap, as the hypocritical admixture of pretty lies ("you're special"/"God loves you") and ugly truth (*insert loved girl turning her head in disgust*) is too much to bear for most".

The Catholic church would revitalize if they could use these handicaps to become celibate priests.

Most of the women he scores are mediocre. It takes a guy who has male model looks to be getting a stream girls who are 6s. One could only imagine the odds working against guys like the Lanzas."

Those are the realities of today's sexual marketplace, yes.

However, there is one place in the world where guys who are 5s and 6s get a stream of girls who are 7s, 8s and 9s.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to what that might be?

Answer: The porn industry.

Jews have shown themselves to be very clever, industrious people. Moreover, economically astute. Perhaps that's why there are so many Jewish men in porn: because they've run the numbers on the sexual marketplace and calculated the weight of the odds stacked against them.

"That's why I started blogging. I believe HBD'ers and SWPL liberals can definitely be friends."

SWPL policies aside from race aren't exactly popular around here either. But out of curiosity I have to ask what your positions on immigration are:

If you believe in HBD then you must know that third world immigrants have evolved psychological traits that are maladapted for high trust, high altruism Western nations. Some of the cognitive traits where third worlders are lacking include IQ, propensity to commit crime, willingness to live with corruption by societal leaders that doesn't directly affect you, willingness to listen to differing opinions, ability to empathize with others problems, and willingness to engage in civic activity.

If you concede the fact different races have via Darwinian selective pressures evolved cognitive traits that are better suited for certain types of social environments than others, then what if anything would you as a SWPL liberal change about American immigration policy?

I realize it's a common refrain, but why can't I own grenades? I don't NEED them, but I don't NEED a car that can go zero to sixty in under four seconds. I don't NEED a beach-house.

If you outlaw grenades, then only outlaws will have them.... Which means right now there are criminals armed with grenades, and law-abiding citizens without them.

It's almost as if some people want to argue that by making grenades legal, they'll be more likely to circulate through the criminal underground via either straw purchases or theft... which is just ridiculous.

Also, if you ban guns, then murder-spree criminals will find another way. The UK and especially Japan have taken measures to ban handguns, and look at all the bombings in those countries. Every week there's a school bombing. I'm guessing. I have no actual evidence of bombings, but I've intuited they would happen, so they must. Maybe the government-controlled MSM in those nations suppresses information on the bombings. Yeah, that's probably what happens.

"If you concede the fact different races have via Darwinian selective pressures evolved cognitive traits that are better suited for certain types of social environments than others, then what if anything would you as a SWPL liberal change about American immigration policy?"

How do you explain the increasing similarity between Asian countries and that of America? A bunch of Alpha sociopaths hoarding all the wealth and women at the expense of complaint beta males.

What do you mean? Do you realize how much less stress you'd have and how much more emotionally healthy overall you'd be, if you had one? Or even could spend two weeks a year in Rob Lowe's place? Would there be less alcoholism, fewer car accidents, fewer Zanax prescriptions, fewer terrible bosses? Maybe YouTube has one of the beach/dune buggy scenes from the original Thomas Crown Affair. What if most people could enjoy that kind of freedom once in awhile.

"What a shockingly naive thing to write. Most victims are Arabs because Arab terrorists lack the power to kill non-Arabs in large numbers, and non-Arabs don't get dragged into their conflicts, they create and/or encourage them by cleverly pitting different Arab subgroups against each other, sometimes even arming both sides. And your laughable implied assertion that the American media is not showing Arab barbarianism because they are pro -Arab is not worth dignifying with a response." - Linda

Sorry cupcake but the Howard Zinn/Noam Chompky worldview that foreigners are meddling in Arab affairs nefariously stirring the pot for their own gain is absurd. The region is full of local rivalries and hatreds. Various governments and factions ask for help from abroad because there is no grand brotherhood of Arab/Muslim solidarity. It comes down to power for themselves.

You're rather naive if you think there isn't a bias to present the worst about western countries while giving a pass to the rest.

As long as we're speculation, I think the guy shot all those kids because he was overdosed on White guilt. A lifetime of being told that you're evil because you're a White man will do that, don't you think?

Violent crime is lower than it has been in 40 years. So there's no reason to think we should ban firearms despite these high profile crimes.

As a high IQ, high earning white male, I would rather have access to the tool that is a firearm, just as I have access to many other tools (like an lathe) but never needed or used it. (I own a lathe and a gun.)

To me gun control would keep guns away from non Asian minorities and lunatics while ensuring I could own one on the off chance I would need it.

But again, I doubt I would. We have record low crime and things like Sandy Hook never happen. When they do happen they happen because the media obsessively covers them.

If anything should be banned, immediate media coverage of these crimes should be banned. News media should not report the names of killers, their victims or specifics of their crimes. Doing this obviously inspires others to emulate the crimes. They should wait 30 days before

its amusing to read posts from the betas who are frightened of guns (and probably things like fast cars and alcohol) breathlessly recount how pointless it Is that gun owners would resist "government" like government is actually in control of anything.

How ridiculous. Iraqis and Afghanis have resisted the US military very effectively. Warsaw Jews resisted Nazis effectively. The viet cong resisted the US with WWI and WWII era weapons.

Imagine how effective Texas could resist the federal government, for example.

I try to walk a fine line between logic - violent crime is low even though there are more guns than ever - and simple traditional manhood - Americans have always owned guns; why let the infrequent excess of minorities and lunatics stop this?

"SWPL policies aside from race aren't exactly popular around here either. But out of curiosity I have to ask what your positions on immigration are:

If you believe in HBD then you must know that third world immigrants have evolved psychological traits that are maladapted for high trust, high altruism Western nations. "

You're right. I've been all over the world, and I'm well aware of this. There's something truly special about European and European descended countries in that we actually feel the pain of others and were the first to believe people have rights. Any proud European or European American should be a liberal, because liberalism is fundamentally European. The patriarchal, culturally singularist social model that so many "pro-White" people embrace came straight out of the Middle East, NOT Europe.

But to answer your question, Undiscovered Jew, I am not a separatist, nor am I particularly patriotic. Those are ideologies for simple ppl. I don't understand why people think acknowledgement of the differences between the races has to entail either separation or hostility. I guess I would best be described as a "paternalist".

Long story short, a big problem is not that white, Western birthrates are too low, but that everyone else's is too high. There are simply too many people in this world of scarce resources. We need to find a way to provide incentives to persuade a large segment of people NOT to breed like rabbits. The only reason so many white Americans are conservative is because the social problems arising from scarcity has them feeling like they can't trust anyone.

Solve scarcity problems, and white people would be overwhelmingly social democratic.

The knowledge of HBD and the belief in gun ownership is anything but weird. Maybe in ones idealized society, gun ownership would be restricted, but considering the society we live in today is anything but, and we have little faith in both national and local authorities to preform their proper functions, placing ones self-defense in ones own hands seems like the most rationale course of action.

"Any proud European or European American should be a liberal, because liberalism is fundamentally European. The patriarchal, culturally singularist social model that so many "pro-White" people embrace came straight out of the Middle East, NOT Europe".

Liberalism in America is a twisted form that have been taken over by a group of people (Jewish) whose ideology is essentially Middle Eastern, which means a tendency for xenophobia and tribalism as its core foundations mixed in with liberal elements. This diseased form of Liberalism is the heart of the problem. I'm not saying this, but others have been for a while.

"Sorry cupcake but the Howard Zinn/Noam Chompky worldview that foreigners are meddling in Arab affairs nefariously stirring the pot for their own gain is absurd."

So why then are non-Arabs meddling in the Arab world? Why do non-Arabs arm both sides of internal Muslim conflicts if there is no "stirring the pot"?

" The region is full of local rivalries and hatreds."

So what! Siblings have rivalries too, but that doesn't mean they're not united against threats from non-family. And when non-Arabs pit rivals against each other by arming both sides of a conflict and overthrowing governments, that might maybe create a little chaos and hatred don't you think?

"there is no grand brotherhood of Arab/Muslim solidarity."

Of course there is. How can you post on HBD forum and deny racial tribalism and inclusive genetic fitness? Please read Rushton's genetic similarity theory before commenting further.

"You're rather naive if you think there isn't a bias to present the worst about western countries while giving a pass to the rest."

I'm sorry, but this is right-wing wacko talk. An agenda by who specifically and how specifically does it behoove them to portray Arabs positively? Meanwhile the actual research (which you don't hear about on Rush Limbaugh and Fox news) shows extreme anti-Islam bias in the U.S. media:

Stricter guns laws isnt going to do much. Let's face it. If someone wants to kill me, you and everyone else in any given space bad enough, they will. If they cant get a gun, they will find some other more deadly means to do it (homemade bombs, arson, etc). I think we need to look at mental illness and go from there.

As for the schools, how about a panic button? I don't have any kids yet so I'm not sure if schools even have such a thing or not. One of the things that I've been hearing this weekend from the MSM is that first responders were on the scene fairly quickly. With a panic button located maybe in the front office or somwhere with schools and accessed at the first moment of presumed trouble, I think would be some help.

American libs ignore european news so that they can fantasize, but I don't expect the link to change any minds, especially that of HS, who besides characterizing guns as a prole (so freighted with meaning) obsession also just gave us:

>>>(1) There will be new momentum to get gun control legislation passed. (This is NOT an endorsement, merely a prediction ... EVEN THOUGH belief in HBD SHOULD mean understanding that there are a lot of people out there whom you shouldn’t feel comfortable with them owning guns.

For some, there is never enough legislation. The only thing keeping HS slightly out of the lib/commie camp is belief in HBD.

[HS: That guns are prole is an OBSERVATION. It's not saying that proles are necessarily wrong 100% of the time.

But if you want to get admitted to Harvard Business School, it's good advice not to mention your gun hobby.]

"There's something truly special about European and European descended countries in that we actually feel the pain of others and were the first to believe people have rights."

It's good to see you are way ahead of the curve on this issue.

"The patriarchal, culturally singularist social model that so many "pro-White" people embrace came straight out of the Middle East, NOT Europe".

Christianity is a universalist religion and it is the basis for much classical liberal thinking. The idea that kings were not living breathing man-gods (as the Egyptians believed of the Pharoah) and that even monarchs had to obey basic moral laws lead to the philosophical evolutuion of equality of fundamental rights. Part of the reason Europe succeeded under Christianity and why Christianity was most successful in Europe was because Christianity's universalism fitted European nature more than any other race. Indeed, the Enlightnement has been called "Chrisitanity without Christ."

"I don't understand why people think acknowledgement of the differences between the races has to entail either separation or hostility. I guess I would best be described as a "paternalist"."

I'm not a separatist either.

But racial differences will lead to societal fracture because different races are more psychologically adapted to different social environments. These differing social preferences, which are often hardwired and not alterable via social intervention, are reflected in the social structures different races choose to setup.

For example, one area of society where race is linked to culture is political corruption. Third world immigrants like Mexicans are willing to tolerate very high levels of political corruption. The level of corruption Mexicans will put up with is totally unacceptable to inherently more altruistic and civic minded European Americans.

Thus from either a liberal or conservative HBD perspective, third world immigrants are INHERENTLY incompatible with a society that wants to maintain LOW levels of corruption and high levels of civic activism.

Political corruption is only one area where the social preferences of races are directly related to hardwired personality and behavioral mental adaptations.

There is also the issue that since third world immigrants have low IQs that they will never care about maintaining a successful society as Europeans will because third world immigrants will never be as successful as Europeans.

"Long story short, a big problem is not that white, Western birthrates are too low, but that everyone else's is too high. There are simply too many people in this world of scarce resources."

It's true that third world birth rates are too high, but I'm not sure if there's anything Westerners can do about it other than taking over their countries and imposing birth control policies on them. I also don't personally care what their birth rates are as long as they aren't immigrating here. Personally I oppose directly or indirectly colonizing third world countries for humanitarian reasons.

They've been saying this for a while even though all of the evidence refutes their position. First of all, the most liberal Jews are the least ethnocentric. The most tribal Jews like Orthodox, Israeli, and secular Russian Jews are anti-minority and pro-white* and vote more heavily Republican than gentile whites even. On every measure of Jewish ethnocentrism such as intermarriage or Israel, higher ethnocentric responses correlate with higher Jewish conservatism. The best way to get Jews to become conservative is to have them identify more strongly as Jews.

If Jews are liberal because they are ethnocentric then why are the most ethnocentric Jews the most pro-white?

Secondly, European Jewish DNA is barely, if at all, related to the original ancient Israelites. European Jewish Middle Eastern DNA is mostly Anatolian Turk, not Levantine Arab. If European Jews are barely related to the Israelites then how can European Jews be pursuing a genetic agenda set in motion by Israelite Jews, whom modern Ashkenazi hardly genetically resemble?

Finally, liberalism has been advancing in all Western nations regardless of whether Jews are there in large numbers or not. Even in mostly Jew free Scandinavia liberalism is the predominant ruling ideology of the elites. Rather than hijacking liberalism from gentiles, Jewish liberalism is simply identical to what other gentile elites already believe. Conversly, when gentile elites are conservative then non-ethnocentric assimilated Jews also become conservative as was the case with the old German Jewish American elites and the Southern Confederate Jews.

* Rockland County Parents Ask State to Oust 5 Orthodox Jews on School Board

In the East Ramapo Central School District here, the children of Caribbean and Latin American immigrants have filled the classrooms in recent years. About 85 percent of the students are black or Hispanic, and only 7 percent are white.

But on the school board, seven of the nine seats are held by Orthodox Jews.

Now, after years of increasingly bitter discord between parents and the board, the parents are trying to force the state to intervene.

A public-interest law firm, acting on behalf of 14 residents, filed a petition last week with the State Education Department, seeking the removal of five of the Orthodox Jewish board members and the appointment of a special monitor to oversee the district. The parents say that the five Orthodox Jewish board members have improperly aided private schools, which are mostly Orthodox yeshivas.

snip

At a school board meeting in May, long before this action was filed, he stunned audience members with remarks that, he acknowledged, have come to be known as “Schwartz’s Rant.”

“We are headed on a crisis, a horrible, horrible crisis,” Mr. Schwartz began. He referred to Auschwitz and Treblinka, and to statements against the board and Jews that he said had been made by district students.

“If you don’t like it, find yourself another place to live,” he said.

In the interview, Mr. Schwartz said it was insulting to contend that Orthodox Jews did not have an interest in excellent public schools.

"So why then are non-Arabs meddling in the Arab world? Why do non-Arabs arm both sides of internal Muslim conflicts if there is no "stirring the pot"? " - Linda

I question how prevalent "arming both sides" is. The fact that a few incidents stick out so much is an example of their rarity.

"So what! Siblings have rivalries too, but that doesn't mean they're not united against threats from non-family. And when non-Arabs pit rivals against each other by arming both sides of a conflict and overthrowing governments, that might maybe create a little chaos and hatred don't you think?" - Linda

Sibling rivalries don't normally reach the level of violence. The Iran-Iraq war is the longest conventional war in history. It also saw the modern use of chemical warfare against Kurdish rebels and Iranian troops. You might say they're not Arab but then we have the Gulf Wars. The middle east is really an example of the failure of diversity. In this case it's cultural diversity. To an outsider they're more alike than not but they don't see it that way. Much like an outsider might see Americans as all alike.

How can you be on an HBD blog and be a liberal? At any rate tribalism isn't just about race but culture and group identity. Social engineers have they've tried (and failed) to craft a "European identity" in the form of the EU and Eurozone which is a dud. WNs have also sought a "white identity" which has gone nowhere. There was once a movement of "pan-Arabism" a secular ideology devoid of ethnic/religious elements and even that failed. People have a lot more differences than just race.

"I'm sorry, but this is right-wing wacko talk. An agenda by who specifically and how specifically does it behoove them to portray Arabs positively? Meanwhile the actual research (which you don't hear about on Rush Limbaugh and Fox news) shows extreme anti-Islam bias in the U.S. media:" - Linda

It's partially a liberal bias much like how NAM dysfunction is rarely covered. It's also a business choice as there is little gained in discussing stuff nobody cares about sorta like terrorism before 911. The portrayal of Islam in the media is hardly negative. If anything it's history of violence and conquest is white washed with crap like "Islam is the religion of peace".

Secondly, European Jewish DNA is barely, if at all, related to the original ancient Israelites. European Jewish Middle Eastern DNA is mostly Anatolian Turk, not Levantine Arab. If European Jews are barely related to the Israelites then how can European Jews be pursuing a genetic agenda set in motion by Israelite Jews, whom modern Ashkenazi hardly genetically resemble?

Not quite. Ashkenazi Jews are substantially Levantine Arab-like, not Turk. See, for example:

The IBD sharing is probably the strongest piece of evidence in this paper for a Caucasian connection. Excess of IBD sharing with Caucasus and Palestinians relative to the other populations may indeed be a good indication of such admixture. On the other hand, the Khazarian Empire was primarily located in eastern Europe and the North Caucasus, not in Armenia and Georgia. Also, this analysis rejects the Greco-Roman hypothesis (whereby European Jews underwent admixture in Greco-Roman times when they were part of the Hellenistic and Roman Empires), but does not really include any Greco-Roman populations (for example, from Greece and Italy).

On the other hand, there may be something to the Khazar story (but in the sense of admixture, rather than replacement). High IBD sharing with Caucasians is one such piece of evidence. Another is the presence of Y-haplogroup Q and R-Z93+, both of which could in principle track a Central Asian Turkic influence (although Z93 could also track an Iranian influence). Then, there is the limited but persistent evidence for a little East Eurasian admixture present in Ashkenazi Jews and not in Sephardic Jews, which might also be consistent with a little Turkic influence.

Overall, I am convinced that most modern Jewish groups have some variable old Near Eastern Jewish ancestry, primarily on the basis of the elevated "Southwest Asian" that seems to correlate reasonably well with groups of Semitic speakers. But, it is difficult to say "how much" and to identify all the potential sources of admixture. Jews have been an international people for quite a long time, so I would guess that fragments of different peoples they encountered may remain in their genomes. Perhaps something akin to Ralph and Coop (2012) may give more information about the timing of these admixture events, as well as the date of the common ancestry of different Jewish groups.

snip

The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses

Eran Elhaik

The question of Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy for over two centuries and has yet to be resolved. The "Rhineland Hypothesis" proposes that Eastern European Jews emerged from a small group of German Jews who migrated eastward and expanded rapidly. Alternatively, the "Khazarian Hypothesis" suggests that Eastern European descended from Judean tribes who joined the Khazars, an amalgam of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries CE and converted to Judaism in the 8th century. The Judaized Empire was continuously reinforced with Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews until the 13th century. Following the collapse of their empire, the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe. The rise of European Jewry is therefore explained by the contribution of the Judeo-Khazars. Thus far, however, their contribution has been estimated only empirically; the absence of genome-wide data from Caucasus populations precluded testing the Khazarian Hypothesis. Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian Hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland Hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses - including principal component, biogeographical origin, admixture, identity by descent, allele sharing distance, and uniparental analyses - to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry.

Btw, the Khazarian hypothesis noted above isn't quite true. The Khazars were mostly Slavic Russians (Google maps of where Khazaria was located). The Caucasian genetic signature comes from the age of Hellenic Jewry when what became European Jewry lived along the coast of Turkey where they converted Greeks and Anatolians to Judaism.

Though it's hard to imagine these days, anti-non-white racism and liberalism can mix together. Vladimir Lenin and Woodrow Wilson were both leftists and were infatuated with DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation. British Eugenics Society chair JBS Haldane cofounded modern population genetics and was an avowed Marxist for most of his life. And, whatever else may be said about him, Joe Stalin probably didn't have a high opinion of African blacks.

Europeans (and the Chinese lately) are disproportionately interested in the Arabs because the Arabs are sitting on a whole lot of easily-pumped oil. Before al-Qaeda set up shop there, nobody gave a shit about Yemen, because it didn't have oil. Only the French gave a damn about Algeria, because the only thing Algeria produces that anyone else cares about is wine.

Arming both sides happens because "Europeans" aren't monolithic, either. For a while, Americans would arm one side of a conflict while the Russians would arm the other side. It's more complicated than that now, but you'll rarely find one power actively on both sides of a fight. Sometimes a fight starts between two clients of the same power, but that usually leads to one of the clients getting dropped.

"If Jews are liberal because they are ethnocentric then why are the most ethnocentric Jews the most pro-white?"

Ethnocentric Jews don't care about White gentiles and what they think. The preservation of Jewishness is much more important than a so called "Pro White" movement.

"On every measure of Jewish ethnocentrism such as intermarriage or Israel, higher ethnocentric responses correlate with higher Jewish conservatism. The best way to get Jews to become conservative is to have them identify more strongly as Jews".

You are correct and incorrect. The Jewish elites tend to be liberal, but have a conservative stance when it comes to their own existence (ex. adamant support of Israel and its apartheid policies, which is a form of tribalism). It's playing both sides of the coin, something that I neither condone nor condemn. Many "liberal" Jewish men who intermarry, insist their spouses convert to Judaism (a form of self preservation -conservatism). This same kind of idealogy is reflected in America as a whole, where liberalism creates opportunities, but are restricted with barriers of forced self racialized identification of individuals and entities (conservatism), unlike a full force liberation and assimilation effect that are grounded in the more socially well adjusted non-Anglophile European countries. This is what I meant as a diseased form of Liberalism, which pervades much of the coastal cities of America (a contradicting hybrid). The most socially dysfunctional places namely the Northeast & California are the result of this diseased form of Liberalism.

"The Khazars were mostly Slavic Russians (Google maps of where Khazaria was located"

The Khazars were conquered by the Rus in the 9th century. There is no evidence that the Khazars were ethnically Slavs. Certainly their Turkic language attests to a non-Slavic origin, although they could have picked up some other admixtures over time.

The conclusions of the Elhaik paper are suspect because the author has a very tenuous grasp of history. Razib had a lot to say about that paper, and it wasn't flattering.

"The Jewish elites tend to be liberal, but have a conservative stance when it comes to their own existence (ex. adamant support of Israel and its apartheid policies, which is a form of tribalism)."

Israel's treatment of their Israeli Muslim population, while not totally egalitarian population isn't harsh enough to be considered apartheid-like. Israeli Muslims are allowed to vote for explicitly anti-semitic Knesset members. Israeli Muslims aren't allowed to serve in the military but this is probably good for the Muslims because they don't have to risk getting killed in combat like Israeli Jews do.

On the whole, Israeli Muslims are treated with kid gloves. But even this easy treatment of Muslim "citizens" is subject to hand wringing from Jewish Americans like Peter Beinart and Tom Friedman.

"Many "liberal" Jewish men who intermarry, insist their spouses convert to Judaism (a form of self preservation -conservatism)."

Most half-Jews practice both Christianity and Judaism unless both their parents are firmly secular.